Re: [Opensync-users] Libsyncml

[Dave H. <dav...@mb...>]

Hi Hubert,

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 22:36 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:24 +1000, Dave Hall wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 18:21 -0700, Dan Mosedale wrote:
> > >  I did notice that libsyncml is GPL, while opensync itself is 
> > > LGPL.  Won't this cause a problem for folks that want to ship opensync 
> > > itself under the LGPL but not the GPL?
> > 
> > There is no problem linking GPL and LGPL code.
> > 
> > As long as the documentation is clear, then there will no issue.  As
> > both licenses require distribution of the source, it should be clear to
> > anyone working on the code what the deal is.
> 
> But it can be a problem. For example to be shipped in GNOME, it would
> have to be a LGPL library, because that is a requirement.
> Or if you want to write a conduit for OpenSync that link against
> something that is not GPL compatible.

I spoke to Dan on #calendar on irc.mozilla.org to discuss the what he
really meant.  

There is no issue if you build a conduit which links to non free code,
as long as you don't distribute a binary version.  You (or anyone else)
can build it from source and have no issues.  Alternatively you could
remove the libsyncml code and distribute a binary version.

Either way it is a pita for a vendor of non free software who wants to
link to opensync with libsyncml support.

I see the point people are making.  Sorry for misunderstanding the
original question.

Cheers

Dave